Re: [patches] Proposal for submission of dfp add-on to EGLIBC

"Ryan S. Arnold" <rsa@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> I agree that the override mechanism isn't desirable for obvious reasons.
> It is easy enough to add a configure option to conditionally define the
> relevant DFP code into the base files and I did this at one time in
> early development.
>
> Your suggested option group method has potential as well. I'm perfectly
> fine with either method.
We'd prefer option groups to configure flags.
> We have some due-diligence work to do before our currently unreleased
> updates to libdfp are ready for inclusion into EGLIBC. I'll keep this
> mailing list posted in the coming weeks.
Sounds great!